A modest proposal

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

Dr Richard Wellings, Transport Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs, says:

^Phasing out taxpayer subsidies to uneconomic lines should be a key priority. Another important step would be to introduce more flexibility for train operators to tackle overcrowding without the need for expensive new track infrastructure, for example by providing more frequent services and extra rolling stock^

(see http://www.cityam.com/article/government-track-its-uneconomic-transport-policy)

How Wellings proposes to lay on extra trains ^without the need for expensive new track infrastructure^ is a moot point, but I think it^s fair to say that you could substitute the words ^Phasing out subsidies to^ with ^Closing^, as surely it would amount to the same thing.

The full article was reminiscent of a report published about 50 years ago by another ^Dr Richard^, but it set me thinking: has anyone ever thought of applying a similar approach to roads?

Here is my modest proposal:

According to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)^s statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-lengths-statistics-in-great-britain-2011) motorways account for 1% of the road network and take 20% of the traffic, whereas the minor rural roads (at 54% of the road network) only account for 14% of traffic. Surely there can be no economic justification for retaining a network of this size?

Rural roads have developed over centuries without a coherent plan; there is duplication and inefficiency. Many villages have two or more roads leading into them, which is impossible to justify in economic terms. Rural roads use valuable agricultural land ^ if we were to close just half of them (6000 miles), it would free nearly 4000Ha of land.  Then there^s the roads maintenance budget; I can^t find the figures for this, but I estimate that in Somerset alone the savings could amount to as much as a pound per year.

Anyway it^s just a thought^

[DavidBrown]

The problem is that, unlike a railway, every single taxpayer-funded road is a public right of way. So you'd have two options;

- Get rid of those public rights of way, which would involve public consultations, legal costs, proposals for the alternative routes etc etc. What you would end up with is the cost of closing one road being the equivalent to keeping it open and maintained for many decades to come - unjustifiable.
- Keep the public rights of way open in the form of bridleways. But they'd need maintaining just as much - and possibly more than a little used country lane. Again, no cost savings to be had there.

What you also forget is that these lanes take up virtually noting of a council's road maintainence budget. The money goes to the A and B roads. Also, most of these roads carry utilities - even if it's just to individual houses. You can't plough a field that has water pipes underneath it, and I'm sure BT would have something to say about closing off all access to 95% of their infrastructure.

[Red Squirrel]

The problem is that, unlike a railway, every single taxpayer-funded road is a public right of way. So you'd have two options;

- Get rid of those public rights of way, which would involve public consultations, legal costs, proposals for the alternative routes etc etc. What you would end up with is the cost of closing one road being the equivalent to keeping it open and maintained for many decades to come - unjustifiable.
- Keep the public rights of way open in the form of bridleways. But they'd need maintaining just as much - and possibly more than a little used country lane. Again, no cost savings to be had there.

What you also forget is that these lanes take up virtually noting of a council's road maintainence budget. The money goes to the A and B roads. Also, most of these roads carry utilities - even if it's just to individual houses. You can't plough a field that has water pipes underneath it, and I'm sure BT would have something to say about closing off all access to 95% of their infrastructure.

My proposal was a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Of course it would be daft to shut down half the rural roads network, and of course it would hardly save any money (hence my suggestion that Somerset alone might save up to a pound a year on its budget). But the Marples/Castle axe didn't save very much either, and left BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) with a huge ongoing maintenance bill for redundant assets.

[grahame]

Dr Richard Wellings, Transport Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs, says:

I suspect he's being a serial shock-jock journalist ...

Fortunately, there is much that can be done quickly to make roads more efficient. The first step is to stop making it even more dysfunctional. Funding for anti-car schemes that reduce capacity or increase delays should be halted. Many bus lanes could be returned to general use, for example. The government should also increase speed limits. Raising the 40 miles per house limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads should be the top priority. As well as boosting productivity, this would improve safety by reducing overtaking.

Ideally, ownership of much of the [road] network would eventually be transferred to the private sector, perhaps partly through a stockmarket flotation of the motorways and trunk roads. The proceeds ^ together with the boost to general revenues from higher efficiency ^ could be used to reduce or even abolish fuel duty.

and I think he makes good use of lies, damned lies and statistics:

The railways are a classic example of a politically distorted market. There is huge variation in the level of subsidy to different parts of the network. London commuter routes generally receive little funding from government, in marked contrast to rural provincial routes that are almost entirely dependent on handouts. This system means passengers on more profitable lines (including in and around London) may end up cross-subsidising those on loss-making ones.

Very curious view that - considering that public transport subsidy in London per head of population is twice what it is anywhere else in the country ...

There IS sense in making off-peak use of roads. There IS sense (one he hasn't mentioned) in looking for ways to increase seat occupancy across all transport modes.   Typical car - 5 seats; typical load - 1 driver + 0 passengers (I've done a few little surveys, peak hour in various places across my travels, and never exceeded 33% of car seats occupied).  But privatising the roads to increase innovation and reduce costs - has that worked well for the railways - I think he argues not.   And there is sense in encouraging off peak (true off peak, which involves better alignment of peak use to peak ticket prices - a farce at the moment) use of trains.

[thetrout]

I'm going to open the proverbial tin of worms here...

Richard Wellings mentions removing bus lanes and returning them to general use. I take it he's never sat on a Bus such as the 173 into Bath during Rush hour?

I have, multiple times. It's a nightmare. Without the bus lanes, the bus operator whether privatised or not would not be able to keep a consistent timetable. I was looking at the new timetable for the A4 Bath - Bristol Airport Service a few weeks ago. The timings throughout the day from what I could see were exactly the same... Why? Because the timetable has huge amounts of slack in it. I caught the bus to the airport at around 4AM a few weeks ago and it stopped to wait for Right Time departure around 5 times. A journey that took around 90 minutes could have been done in 70 or less. However the clock face timetable makes up for it I guess.

Now what about those people that cannot drive? (I'm one of them). This is one of the things I hate about the Government. They seem to be cutting subsidies for public transport. Yet if those buses/trains/trams etc don't run. People who can't drive will not be able to get to work. Indeed if I were to lose the 234 or 267 routes in Frome. I would not be able to continue running my business as the Taxi costs would cause me to run at a loss. It's hard enough relying on transport that has no guarantee of turning up and then having no reimbursement from the operator if it doesn't.

Several young people in Frome have been offered jobs outside of Frome but cannot afford the public transport, cannot afford their own car so they have to turn jobs down and continue their JSA claim. There was a particular case where someone could just about commute to Shepton Mallet by bus. However on learning of the proposed changes to the 161 they turned the job down based on the time it would take there and back.

Also with regards to the fares on the 267. We have the Following prices:

First: Single or Return ^6.60

Faresaver: Single: ^5.80 Return: ^6.80 (Possibly, Scott can you help?)

Shaftesbury and District X80: Single: ^3.40 Unsure of return price.

That X80 service runs twice return every Saturday and can take me to back on ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) or for ^3.40 Yet how does that come into account for the other operators charging nearly double?

[Red Squirrel]

I suspect he's being a serial shock-jock journalist ...

He's not a journalist, and I'm pretty sure he believes what he says. He cropped up on 'Beeching Night' arguing against rail investment; I don't think he'd be offended if I were to characterise him as a neo-Beechingite (or perhaps a neo-Serpellite).

Several young people in Frome have been offered jobs outside of Frome but cannot afford the public transport, cannot afford their own car so they have to turn jobs down and continue their JSA claim. There was a particular case where someone could just about commute to Shepton Mallet by bus. However on learning of the proposed changes to the 161 they turned the job down based on the time it would take there and back.

I used to think that the idea of re-opening the B&NS was a pipe dream, and maybe it is - but I do feel there is a better case for the B&NS than there could ever be for the 'top half' of the S&D^▸ (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway). I reckon the journey time to Bristol (where, in general, jobs can be had) from Frome via the B&NS ought to be around 30-35 mins, and the fare should be about a tenner. That would take a lump out of your pay if you were on minimum wage, but I suspect a lot of people would take that on the chin to gain experience...